Well, yes, anaphora is one of those places where Lojban falls short, so an ideal loglang would handle it differently. But that doesn't seem to be directly relevant here, *{da'au} isn't being used anaphorically here, nor in the various versions of "we" ,which does not always include the notion, or indeed the second person either -- salience again. We are the salient group who is speaking through the utterance of one of us.
Sent from my iPad
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:31:36 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote: On 18 June 2013 06:15, la arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 16, 2013 10:04:36 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote:
After slogging through this long and repetitive thread, I find I have lost what the point was. To help guiding my understanding, I summarize the present situation as I understand it.
In a given speech situation there is are a bunch (maybe only one) of people speaking or being represented by the speaker ({mi}), another bunch (not necessarily separate) who directly or vicariously hear the speech ({do}), and a third group not directly involved in the speech act ({ko'a} and just about everything else).
In the event being spoken about any or all of these groups (or parts of them) may be involved and they may be referred to by the designations derived from their speech-act roles: {mi + do}, {mi + ko'a}, {do + ko'a} and {mi + do + ko'a}, in various abbreviated forms.
On a standard Lojban assumption (at least
since xorlo achieved its final form), the simplest such forms refer to the united bunches. The question of how those bunches satisfy the predicates involved is left to context or a demand for clarification.
Toward clarification, then, we have a different forms for when the bunch satisfies the predicate distributively (individually, more or less) and when it satisfies it collectively (as a mass, ditto).
As a side note, the English (and perhaps many other languages') "we", does not correspond directly to any of these things, since it is distinctly plural (unlike {mi}) and may include or exclude any number of others.
1. first person. {mi=le cusku be dei} 2. second person {do=le te cusku be dei} 3. non-person, someone not in the dialog {da'au = da poi prenu gi'e na'e cusku be dei gi'e na'e te cusku be dei} (ad hoc experimental cmavo)
Also we need {da'ai = da poi prenu gi'e na'e cusku be dei}
I don't think experimental cmavo are at all necessary for this purpose.
So I = mi you exclusively = do you and others = do'o = do jo'u da'au
we = mi jo'u da'ai we exclusively = mi jo'u da'au = mi'a you and I = mi jo'u do = mi'o we inclusively = mi jo'u do jo'u da'au = ma'a
you and others = do'o = do jo'u lo drata be mi .e do
{lo drata be mi} doesn't state the thing is a person. Althouth yes, for most cases it's precise enough.
others and I (could include the listener) = mi jo'u lo drata be mi (or if you like lujvo, {lo mibdrata})
exclusive we = mi'a = mi jo'u lo drata be mi .e do you and I = mi'o = mi jo'u do inclusive we = ma'a = mi jo'u do jo'u lo drata be mi .e do
The only time we don't have a KOhA dedicated for the expansion is case #2, but in my opinion, such a cmavo is unnecessary.
Well, my point was to expand this topic to anaphora. {da'au} is "he/she/'ey" in English. And English "we" includes this {da'au}. Probably John has other ideas of what anaphora might look like in a hypothetical loglang but that's probably a story for anther thread.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
|